borderlandsfandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Captainmcpants
Welcome Welcome to ! Thanks for your edit to the File:2013-06-10 00001.jpg page. We hope you will continue to be a regular contributor, and will help us improve the wiki! Please leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything! I'll be happy to help. WarBlade (talk) 23:36, June 9, 2013 (UTC) *''For a detailed list of all our available admins, check out Borderlands Wiki:Active Mods'' Greetings Please sign your talk page and forum posts with four tildes: ~~~~ The reason is because it shows who said what. It also gives a link back to your talk page for easy communication. Thanks. 17:16, November 27, 2013 (UTC) I've made very few "talks" thus far so I'll go fix 'em up with signatures. Captainmcpants (talk) 17:26, November 27, 2013 (UTC) Above is a friendly reminder to categorize images from our neighborhood bureaucrat. The easiest way for lots of images is to look at your contributions and cat each one. Then just go back in your browser for the list again. Also to note is that red box items will be reverted by our neighborhood variant chart watcher. There is a policy proposal that is on the board as we speak for that in a forum. 17:15, November 28, 2013 (UTC) What red box items? And what forum? I'd also like to know how I submit pages for merge reviews. Captainmcpants (talk) 04:33, November 29, 2013 (UTC) Forum:Image_policy_update... Red box items are items that you haven't leveled up enough to actually use so they appear red. You can resubmit any that are deleted. I've posted my two cents on the matter. Thanks for linking it - I'm finding getting around the membership areas of the wiki more cumbersome than I first thought it would be when I was just a reader. Captainmcpants (talk) 13:58, November 30, 2013 (UTC) Merge reviews? You mean combining pages? You would write a Forum:Watercooler or a blog to propose such a thing. Alternatively, if its a format or page issue then Warblade would be the most appropriate one to ask if it is possible. 22:18, November 29, 2013 (UTC) But so far it doesn't look like that's how people propose mergers. Take Jumpin_Bitty/Jumpin_Biddy for example; they have that text box at the top to indicate the suggested merger. I know how to make the box, but I don't know if that box is linked to some kind of bulletin board for mergers-to-review. Captain McPants (talk) 04:08, December 2, 2013 (UTC) As a guess, I would assume that particular box is not very official. The date stamp on it is old (the last contributor) and there is no discussion on the talk page. The discussion could have been made in chat, which has no weight since it is not a public and up front form of discussion. After all, nothing has been done with the proposed page merge. You should ask Warblade about this. 12:58, December 2, 2013 (UTC) Red box discussion The link you asked for: User_blog:MadCrayolaz/PSA:_Variant_Chart_Entry_Adding I originally made the image proposal in order for others to add what they wanted (such as Crayolaz addition). I kept to the basics and had to add the 5th proposal because of conscious. You see, I am a Liaison on this wiki (an unofficial title that is concerned with the rights of Users). I was appointed by Dr.F as a reach out program and continue to serve as a Mesopedian (see discussion in link for my input). Since Crayolaz did not add anything himself (probably because of Dr.F's comment, I can only guess), I had to add it myself because it is in continuing practice. I either have to support Crayolaz good job of watching the variants pages, or support a Users right to add red box images. Since the standard of the wiki is in issue and editors can fix red box images (by leveling up), I choose to support Crayolaz good job of keeping the variant pages to a decent standard. As far as Dr.F's assertion about Variant policy: It is not actually Dr.F that determines policy but the community. I am guessing that he does not wish to add a separate policy page on variant charts so including it in image policy should be acceptable. 12:54, December 2, 2013 (UTC) :I totally agree with you about members needing to know about pedantic requirements lest their completely functional contributions be in vain due to a crayon's hatred of the colour red. But he's the boss, so I yield. Now I have to go trade my items uphill to get them up to scratch... :On an unrelated note, could I draw your attention to this problem: http://borderlands.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Fryguy42#Bladed_Weapons :Captain McPants (talk) 13:13, December 2, 2013 (UTC) The community is the boss... Crayolaz just doesn't like to SHARE his red crayon... I answered you on Fry's talk page. 13:22, December 2, 2013 (UTC) Merger What is your reasoning behind the merge? They all have different parts, and are different grenades. As far as I see, there is 0 reason to merge different items that have no relevance more than their maker and type. 02:42, December 4, 2013 (UTC) :I asked questions first; howbout someone at least respond to them a teensy bit, before we proceed to the mergers (which are more about accessibility and simplicity than absolutes)? Here and here. Thank you. Captain McPants (talk) 13:58, December 4, 2013 (UTC) ::Let me see if I can clarify on both counts: Regarding the blade on launchers, my personal experience is that they ALWAYS have the damage buff. This may not be the case with white rarity launchers, but I am pretty certain every other rarity does. I have personally done tests on this by testing out each launcher, because I doubted the hidden 50% bonus, but from my tests, every one except whites (which I didn't find any of) had this bonus. As for the proof needed for the Cannon, a weapon like the Cannon goes against...well...the canon (bad pun) that Jakobs holds, which is that it doesn't have weapons with elements on them. I haven't ever come across any, so I put this as needing proof. If it DOES turn out to be a Jakobs weapon with an element, it needs to be marked as an Aftermarket weapon, although, I wonder if the definition needs to be changed, since it applies AFAIK to only Legendary and Unique items. And if you needed these answered, it's best to post it where someone will be notified of it. When you post to a blog, I don't see hte update, and thus, cannot help you. If you need any more explanation of this, contact me on my Talk page, but at this point, I would like to talk about the merger. 14:35, December 4, 2013 (UTC) :::Actually, I wrote that blog shortly before replying here, as I felt it would be better to summarize my findings/questions (that have been posted on various locations) in one blog. :::Since this is your claim on the blade matter, what fate does that hold for the (apparently false) claim on the melee page? Do we have someone that can check the code or something? Do we know why the claim was made on the melee page to begin with? :::I understand that the Cannon's "citation needed" tag is related to its nature being out of the ordinary, but they were only compared as an example - what is our policy on the burden of proof? How wild must a claim be before we expect to see evidence? Why aren't all claims subject to that level of scrutiny? :::Merger text to follow. Captain McPants (talk) 15:41, December 4, 2013 (UTC) :::Merger: :::I'd like to emphasise that I only added merge_multi to the top of the Murrv page to test the water and demonstrate my proposal. I don't want to make sweeping changes unless people agree with the benefits, being that a single page will eliminate confusion and redundancy. :::I disagree that these grenades are different from one-another. AFAIK they're all using the same bit of item generation code with only the title being slightly altered - comparing each title, the prefix is the only component doing any work. :::How is this any different than the variations between "GUrnade", "gurnade" or "Gurnade"? The ONLY reason they're clumped together on a page is because they contain equivalent Latin Alphabet characters. Surely you don't suggest that there is built into the gurnade generation code a sub routine for only inverting the lower or upper case characters? Of course not, else they'd simplify it like that for all the other poorly spelled Bandit products. :::If you want me to instantly denounce the idea of the Bandit MIRVs being the same, show me the mechanical differences, or at the least their potential for one to be incapable of generating, mechanically or aesthetically, the exact same variant as another. :::Show me a fossil of a rabbit in the Precambrian and I'll denounce evolution while we're at it. Captain McPants (talk) 16:15, December 4, 2013 (UTC) ::::To talk about the proof, it's pretty much a grey area in what people consider plausibly incorrect. Thus, not everything is publicly tested, or tested at all. Essentially, if you think it could be plausibly incorrect, or some such, note it as such. All it means is that there is no present citable proof regarding the verification of the claim. ::::As to the grenades, the fact that the names are different is enough proof that they ARE different. They each have a special part that gives it their name. This is true for ALL items, not just grenades. So while every part besides that may be the same, they are technically not the same grenade. As well, you don't test the waters by putting something on a page. You take a vote. As well, you are making assumptions, instead of finding the proof that they are indeed identical in every way, except for name, which by your assumption, isn't handled by a part. Until that time, you shouldn't even bring up the idea, since under current logic, there is no reason FOR their merging. 20:13, December 4, 2013 (UTC) :::::In that case, I'll submit to them being different as a universal rule that all things with even slight name differences are automatically diffrent. But what does that mean for "GUrnade", "gurnade" or "Gurnade"? :::::Edit: I removed merge_multi from the top of Murrv because reasons. Captain McPants (talk) 17:53, December 5, 2013 (UTC) Vinegar vrs. honey Sarcasm doesn't work very well. Text is hard enough to transfer tone, let alone being sarcastic in the middle. You can do what you like in an argument, of course. Just saying that sarcasm is an immediate way to "get someones back up" and is largely unproductive. This comes from my extensive experience of using it to no avail. It doesn't bring logical argument to the issue at hand, even though it seems to on the surface (while editing). It tends to bring elements of comparison outside the realm of parables. While comparison is necessary sometimes, sarcastic versions of comparison tend to bloat the issue with largely unrelated and unproductive text, not to mention feelings of all parties. Just something to point out from experience, please don't be offended. 17:03, December 4, 2013 (UTC) :Appreciated. But I'll need examples of my own trespasses for it to be corrected, otherwise "sarcasm" is just a word with a textbook definition. Captain McPants (talk) 17:14, December 4, 2013 (UTC) No biggy. Just referring to the above section. As I said, tone can be hard to portray. It comes of as rather cold and extremely sarcastic as well as overbearing. Doesn't seem productive but as I said, I have fallen into the same trap before so I am not trying to judge. 19:03, December 4, 2013 (UTC) Links Please try and use internal links for subjects covered in the Borderlands Wiki. External link: Scorpio Turrets Internal links: Scorpio Turrets assault rifle You'll see in those examples that I have made a plural simply by attaching the "S" to the tail of the link - the wiki software then adds this to the link on the displayed page. With the assault rifle link I kept the common noun in lower case - the first section of the link is the hyperlink, and the second section presents the displayed version. Tip: Lance (assault rifle) As with the assault rifle link in the previous example, contributors can type out a section of text to display that is different from the full text of the link, but in cases where they differ due to a disambiguation clarifier in parenthesis simply adding the bar and saving the page will cause the wiki software to generate the displayed text, eg. Lance. Categories: robot In this example the colon at the front will allow a link to be displayed rather than categorising the page. --WarBlade (talk) 21:21, December 29, 2013 (UTC) ::Thanks for that massive cleanup. ::I've I noticed that you opted for only having the first instance of a linkable object with the same name actually be a hyperlink to make the text less orange and redundant. ::I understand that some of those descriptors were a bit lengthy but what I don't get is why the word Aid Station in the Lance Combat Medic's "by deploying an Aid Station Scorpio." no longer links to Aid Station. ::Also, is there a way to get the disambiguation page to have the highest priority with its name simply as "Lance" and every other Lancy page have a longer name or paranthesis? Currently the Lance, the title of a group of sniper rifles in Borderlands gets to be mononymous instead of being called something like "Lance (Borderlands)" or "Lance (title)". I think it would be much more idiot proofed if the disambiguation page could be found easier. Do a search for lance and see what I mean. If you're looking for Lance, the title of a group of assault rifles in Borderlands 2 you're going to have a hard time finding it because of the deprioritization of paranthesised pages. Captain McPants (talk) 08:07, December 30, 2013 (UTC) :::The page structure can be updated, yes. I was merely doing cleaning pass before, rather than a full disambiguation rework. The Aid Station Scorpio is quite different to Roland's Aid Station skill, so I removed that link to avoid confusion. -- WarBlade (talk) 19:18, December 30, 2013 (UTC)